Rajesh Gupta v. The State Of Bihar And ORS
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.7771 of 2018 ====================================================== Rajesh Gupta Son of Premchand Prasad, Resident of Mohalla- Lal Bangala, Paschimi Makrain Ward NO. 10, P.O. and P.S.- Dalmianagar, District- Rohtas. ... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1.
The State Of Bihar and Ors 2.
The Principal Secretary, Department of Land and Revenue Reforms, Bihar, Patna.
3.
The District Magistrate-cum-Collector, Rohtas at Sasaram. 4.
The Superintendent of Police, Dehri on Sone, Rohtas. 5.
The Additional Collector Rohtas at Sasaram.
6.
The Sub Divisional Officer, Dehri-on-Sone, Rohtas. 7.
The Circle Officer, Dehri-on-Sone, Rohtas.
... ... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s :
Ms. Supriya Kumari, Advocate For the Respondent/s :
Mr. Vivekanand Singh, AC to Gp18 ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV ROY ORAL ORDER 16-09-2025 Heard Ms. Supriya Kumari, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Vivekanand Singh learned AC to GP18.
2. The present writ petition has been preferred for the following relief(s):
(i) To issue an appropriate including order/s, direction/s a writ preferably in the nature of Mandamus commanding and directing upon the respondents to not to interfere in the physical possession of the villagers over the land measuring 2.60 acre and 2 decimals appertaining to Khata no. 104, plot no. 136, Khata no 103. Plot no. 197 respectively situated in Mohalla Lal
2/4 Bangalia (Makrain) Ward No. 10, PO. & P.S. Dalmianagar, District Rohtas who are down to earth people belonging to weaker section and landless persons constructed years. nutshell there in for the last 80 years.
(ii) To direct the respondents to not to evict the villagers at the instance of musclemen higher approach persons and rich persons trying to dispose by way of cancellation jamabandi (iii) To any other reliefs to which the petitioner is entitled in the facts and circumstances of the case
3. This writ petition was preferred in the year 2018 after service of copies upon the State counsel.
4. In the year 2019, a counter affidavit on behalf of respondent nos. 10 to 14 and a perusal of the same would show that it has no relationship with the present writ petition inasmuch as in the said case, the paragraph 4 records that the petitioner wanted payment of Rs. 6,39,096/- for the work rendered by him in connection with six laning of VaranasiAurangabad section of National Highway.
5. It is to be noted that no counter affidavit has come in the present case save and except that irrelevant affidavit which may be connected to other writ petition.
3/4
6. In that background, a cost of Rs. 1,000/- is imposed upon the aforesaid State Officer and the amount is to be paid to Ms. Supriya Kumari learned counsel for the petitioner and the receipt has to be filed in the office within a week.
7. Learned counsel for the petitioner has taken this Court to the supplementary affidavit with specific reference to paragraph no. 6 and the submission is that the Urban Development and Housing Department, Bihar, Patna vide memo no. 2472 dated 05.09.2019 directed all the District Magistrates of Bihar to take steps for rehabilitation of landless persons. The submission is that the petitioner is continuing there for more than five decades but the respondents have not taken note of that.
8. Instead of keeping the writ petition pending, with the consent of the parties, this Court directs the petitioner to approach the Collector, Rohtas at Sasaram (respondent no. 3) in next four weeks, who shall be looking into the matter and after hearing all the parties, including the revenue authorities and taking into account the directive given by the Urban Development and Housing Department, Bihar, Patna vide memo no. 2472 dated 05.09.2019 (Annexure 8 to the petition), shall take the matter to its logical conclusion preferably by 31st
4/4 December, 2025.
9. The writ petition is disposed of with the aforesaid observation.
10. Before parting, this Court would like to put on record its word of appreciation for Ms. Supriya Kumari for the assistance rendered in the matter.
(Rajiv Roy, J) Raj Ranjan/- U T